( 1 ) THE respondent, Syndicate Bank, filed o. S. No. 4 of 1993 in the Court of Senior Civil judge, Miryalguda for recovery of certain amount, against the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte on 30-12-1994. It filed E. P. No. 19 of 1999 for execution of decree and the same was transferred to the Court of Senior civil Judge, Bhongir, and it was numbered as E. P. No. 171 of 2003.

( 2 ) ON receipt of notice in the E. P. , the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30-12-1994 in O. S. No. 4 of 1983. Since there was delay of 1867 days, he filed I. A. No. 65 of 2000 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The same was dismissed by the trial Court through its order dated 18-9-2002. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

( 3 ) IN the Counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 35,000/- on 29-03-1990 as loan and since it was not paid, they filed the suit to recover the amount. It is stated that the address of the petitioner, which was furnished in the documents in the loan transaction was furnished in the plaint and when summons could not be served on the petitioner, substituted service was effected. The facts such as dismissal of E. P. No. 19 of 1999 for default, its restoration and subsequent transfer to Court of Senior Civil judge, Bhongir are also stated. It contends that the petitioner failed to explain the delay in filling application under Order 9 Rule 13, in particular the delay subsequent to receipt of summons in the E. P.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not obtained any loan from the respondent and that he has not been served with any notice in the suit. He submits that the petitioner received notice for the first time in the E. P. , that too after it was transferred to the Court at Bhongir. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner is resident of Bhongir and that he never had transaction with the respondent functioning at Miryalaguda. He also submits that soon after the petitioner was served with the notice in the E. P. he made an effort to know the details, to secure the papers and on account of non-cooperation of respondent there was delay in filing application, after receiving the notice in E. P. also.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent sri Subramany am, on the other hand submits that the respondent has furnished the same address in the suit as was found in the loan documents and on account of non service of notice, substituted service was effected. Reiterating the contents of counter affidavit, he submits that the petitioner did not explain the enormous delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. According to him the petitioner has come forward with the present application only to defeat the benefits of decree accrued to the respondent.

( 6 ) ON the face of it the delay is enormous, being 1867 days. While Courts insist that each days delay is to be explained, they also emphasize the need to enable the parties to avail an adjudication on merits than through ex parte decrees. A decent balance between these two extremes has to be maintained. Ultimately, what needs to be verified by the court in such matters is as to whether the party which approaches the Court to condone delay has exhibited due diligence and was prevented by any reasonable cause.

( 7 ) IN the matters of condonation of delay in presenting applications to set aside the ex parte decrees, one important fact which needs to be verified is as to whether the petitioners in such application have been served with notices. This results in substantial difference in the approach to the matter. If the party was in total darkness of the proceedings on account of non service of notice, length of delay becomes immaterial. On the other hand, if a party was served with notice and did not care to respond to the proceedings, the Court will

Click Here to Read the rest of this document